S.K. SREEDHAR Vs. R. RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions have been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality of the common order passed by the learned trial judge (VII Assistant Judge), City Civil Court, Chennai dated 28.07.2011 made in I.A. Nos. 8253 and 8254 of 2011 in O.S. No. 12666/2009. The respondents herein/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. No. 12666 of 2009 for a decree directing the petitioner herein/defendant to produce statement of accounts with regard to the running account of financial transaction he had with the first plaintiff for the years 2005-2007 and to reconcile the statement of account as per plaint document No. 18, namely acknowledgement of the Defendant's Lawyer, for a mandatory injunction directing the revision petitioner/defendant to return the blank cheques and blank promissory notes allegedly extorted from the respondents herein/plaintiffs in the years 2005 - 2007 and for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner/defendant from making use of the blank promissory notes and blank cheques allegedly extorted from the revision petitioner/defendant.

(2.) The suit was contested by the revision petitioner/defendant. The trial progressed in a slow pace due to the repeated adjournments taken by the respondents herein/plaintiffs. Even for the completion of the examination of the revision petitioner/defendant, who figured as the sole witness (DW1) on his side, nearly eight months came to be consumed. Thereafter the counsel appearing for both parties advanced their oral arguments, besides submitting written arguments and the case was reserved for judgment to be pronounced on 28.03.2011. Even on the day fixed for the pronouncement of the judgment, namely 28.03.2011, the trial judge did not pronounce judgment and the case came to be adjourned. During the month of April 2011, the respondents herein/plaintiffs filed the above said I.A. Nos. 8253 and 8254 of 2011 for reopening the case and for recalling DW1 for further cross examination.

(3.) The petition was opposed by the petitioner herein/defendant by filing a detailed common counter affidavit contending that the filing of those applications was nothing but an attempt to protract the case, besides pointing out that the supporting affidavit did not make out a case for reopening the case and recalling of DW1 for further cross examination.